I'm sorry Steve, I respectfully disagree with you. ALA, R-ALA, K-ALA and Na-RALA are effectively the same foundational ingredient, so I wasn't really bashing the supplement, but rather, the form. There is a difference in supplementation, even though it sounds similar. For example, there are different bioactive forms of many vitamins and minerals. Speaking negatively about a form, is not the same as speaking negatively about the actual vitamin or mineral. There is a fine line, and there is a difference.
ALA contains 50/50 R+ and and S- which is a racemic enantiomer that is chemically bounded. There have been countless studies that show the S- isomer competes with the R+, thereby drastically reducing the benefits of the R+ isomer. Any benefits you see on ALA, is effectively and solely as a result of the R+ enantiomer, but the benefits are far reduced, because it competes with the S- chemically [and synthetic] bounded enantiomer.
So, yes, while ALA isn't "totally useless", you're essentially paying for a product that is 50% effective with a potentiality of the S- isomer competing, reducing positive effects even further. R-ALA is really not that expensive, and if consumers knew the difference, they'd never buy it.
Any positive benefits from ALA, is from the R+ isomer, so why not similar use the isomer that's beneficial. which exists. That's my point.
Once more consumers are educated on the differences, they'd certainty gravitate towards R-ALA and even Na R-ALA. It's really no different than educating people on any ingredient or product that one company has superior to another.
Either way, thanks for your response sir, and I'll leave it there.
No worries, I'm fine with discussing it. I'll elaborate a little more here.
I do understand where you're coming from, but at a certain point advanced forms of things becomes cost prohibitive and also at a certain cost of a raw material, there are just other things that are better ingredients.
Your reply to me makes it seem like you may be under the impression I'm not familiar with these ingredients or at least not aware of how familiar with these ingredients that I am.
I got my start in the industry doing formulation and raw material sourcing for other brands over 20 years ago. I have multiple brands of my own now, but still do raw material sourcing and formulation for over a dozen brands, some of which are much much larger than my own. I also consult with some of the largest branded ingredient and raw material suppliers in the world.
I did formulation for one of the first brands to ever launch an R-ALA supplement, and I've known people at Geronova, the company that holds the patent and introduced Na-R-ALA to the market, ever since Na-R-ALA was still in development stages.
Your statement:
ALA, R-ALA, K-ALA and Na-RALA are effectively the same foundational ingredient, so I wasn't really bashing the supplement, but rather, the form. There is a difference in supplementation, even though it sounds similar. For example, there are different bioactive forms of many vitamins and minerals. Speaking negatively about a form, is not the same as speaking negatively about the actual vitamin or mineral. There is a fine line, and there is a difference.
I'm very well aware of the different forms. I'm also one of the first people to write about the heat degradation issues of R-ALA and also consulted with a large raw material supplier that was working to correct that issue over 15 years ago.
My point was that any way you look at it, its indisputable that regular Alpha Lipoic Acid is by far the most well researched form - there are literally hundreds of studies on regular Alpha Lipoic Acid for every one on another form.
As I stated above several times, I do feel that Na-R-ALA is a better form, but that does not mean that regular Alpha Lipoic Acid is not effective as well. There are hundreds of studies showing that it is.
I'm not disagreeing if its better - I'm saying that at a certain point it becomes price prohibitive or that other ingredients simply become a better value for the money. That's all.
Your stated:
R-ALA is really not that expensive, and if consumers knew the difference, they'd never buy it.
R-ALA is 2x to 3x the cost of regular Alpha Lipoic Acid and its very important for brands to be very selective as to the supplier they choose for this because some of it is exceptionally heat sensitive and may wind up being regular ALA by the time it gets into the customers hands to begin with.
^^^ that is not an opinion - its been stated by some of the largest Alpha Lipoic Acid suppliers in the world.
Na-R-ALA - is up to 8x as expensive as regular Alpha Lipoic Acid.
Is it better? Yes.
Is it worth 8x the price? That's individual opinion.
^^^ for me personally, before I'd spend 30 to 40 on Na-R-ALA, I'd buy a comprehensive GDA like GlycoPhase or GlucoVantage XT.
It's not that Na-R-ALA isn't good; its just that at a certain price I'd spend my money on other things - that's all I was saying.
I would be much more likely to do an R-ALA product than an Na-R-ALA product because I think it would sell better because of the price point. The issue though is that there are a lot of R-ALA products on the market from scam/fly by night brands that don't even attempt to meet label claims, which is unfortunately a huge issue with a lot of single ingredient items now days.
If you're not familiar with what I'm talking about, NOW Foods has tested many Amazon brands for different ingredients and posted the results, showing that many don't come anywhere close to label claims. Their most recent testing was testing various Berberine supplements and some popular Amazon brands had less than 40% of label claim.
️